Changing the indexes worked

[Andys dad]

OK - believe it or not my original post here was "toung in cheek". I was not for the lowering of the indexes. I preferred to change the trigger point to bring some of the out of line combinations more in line. The race at Pomona proved the point. Now some out of line combinations will never get HP.

However, if the indexes had stayed the same and NHRA had lowered the trigger point to say, 1 second (as some have suggested) - ggeezzee - 45 cars out of 79 would have been flagged and that does not seem right either.

This is a rich mans sport. Stackers, motorhomes, $25,000 motors, etc. The days of working on your car on weekends and during the week and feeling good about your chances are gone, at least if you have a heads up or run for class. But niether of those happen that often. So I will just continue to bracket race in stock and hope my son gets back in the seat soon (college studies and athletics), since the only way I can cut .00 lights is if my foot slips off the brake.

LOL

The trigger point should be .85 under. Lowering the indexes should not have effected the AHFS. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Stay warm back there in the snow.

[Pat Cook]

Rich, retirement is good. I do miss the proving grounds, believe or not I was on those guys that enjoyed his job. I hate to see anybody get fired, but Mark Tammy Hota needed to be let go after selling the place. Send me an e-mail drgrcr1@hotmail.com

[SS Engine Guy]

Very good points on most of the posts on this thread. I need to clarify my statement that I could care less what the index is. That is really not what I meant to convey after re-reading my post. I would really rather run heads up, first to the finish line, may the best driver/most power win. That is where the index comment came from. I find that interesting/challenging and exciting with-in an EXISTING SET OF RULES to see who can be fast or faster.The rulebook we don't get (unless we pay more money) is not even a good guide line in terms of what can be done performance wise. It has become the norm to find illegal components and/or modifications and just change the rule to allow them. I will agree that with the now allowed modifications the indexes are soft in some cases, both stock and SS. However, I know that there are a bunch of factors that are so soft that you don't even need the basic "good stuff" in order to run a second under much less the reshaped chambers, light weight cranks, trick of the week intakes, etc. I can't help it if by correcting the hp figures causes a car to weigh 4000 or more lbs. I guess a correctly factored combo that has to weigh too much must not be a very good combo in the real world. Not everything that comes out of the "oem" has to be a viable drag racing combo.

I regret that stock and SS racing has become so expensive and uncontrolled. I still, on the other hand, admire the guy who can go .02 under and do a vast majority of the work themselves. What has to stop,in order for things to slow down,is the constant changing of the rules. What we need is to enforce the rules (and make them well known to all). What we also need is across the board factoring corrections. Its not difficult. It will hurt some egos here and there however, you can't blame a racer for picking a combo that is factored more favorably than another. Problem is that there shouldn't be no more than a +/- 5hp margin of error on anything. As people state, this is 2010, getting factors close dosen't need some elaborate calculation that no one, including the people that started it, can explain. The bell curve that Lynn has expained would work. But you don't even need that. Its called common sense. If the factors were in line there would have been no index change. All changing the index did was make it harder to bring combos into line and obscure the obvious.